Although energy prices have tripled in the United States

[hmgmat]

Although energy prices have tripled in the United States over the last two years, research indicates few people to have significantly reduced the amount of driving they do, nor are they making fuel efficiency a priority when shopping for cars.

A. few people to have significantly reduced the amount of driving they do, nor are they making
B. few people having significantly reduced the amount of driving they do or made
C. that there are few people who have significantly reduced the amount of driving they do, nor having made
D. that few people have significantly reduced the amount of driving they do and are not making
E. that few people have significantly reduced the amount of driving they do or made

OA is E.

I used POE to get the answer E.

But I wonder what "do" substitutes for. It certainly can't substitute for "driving" because "driving" isn't a verb.

If it substitutes for "reduce", then what does "few people have significantly reduced the amount of driving (that) they reduce" mean?

Thanks in advance.

[RonPurewal]

Although energy prices have tripled in the United States over the last two years, research indicates few people to have significantly reduced the amount of driving they do, nor are they making fuel efficiency a priority when shopping for cars.

A. few people to have significantly reduced the amount of driving they do, nor are they making
B. few people having significantly reduced the amount of driving they do or made
C. that there are few people who have significantly reduced the amount of driving they do, nor having made
D. that few people have significantly reduced the amount of driving they do and are not making
E. that few people have significantly reduced the amount of driving they do or made

OA is E.

I used POE to get the answer E.

But I wonder what "do" substitutes for. It certainly can't substitute for "driving" because "driving" isn't a verb.

If it substitutes for "reduce", then what does "few people have significantly reduced the amount of driving (that) they reduce" mean?

Thanks in advance.

they're using it idiomatically here. you can "do a lot of driving", in the same way you can "do a lot of homework".
i am a bit surprised, though, to see this construction (which strikes me as colloquial) in an official problem.

--

do notice that the identical construction appears in all five choices, so that it's actually irrelevant to the solution of the problem.

[hmgmat]

Hi Ron,

I understand your examples: "do a lot of driving" and "do a lot of homework".
But I am not sure what is omitted after "they do" here. Is it "that amount of driving"?
"They do that amount of driving"? Sounds a little bit weird to me...probably because I am not a native speaker.

This question does come from GMATPrep.
A lot of questions in GMATPrep seem not as formal as OG ones....not sure whether GMAC changed its style...

[RonPurewal]

yes, "do that amount of driving" is the idea here.

the degree of formality in the two sources is, as far as i've seen, the same, although there are occasional surprises: i too am a bit surprised to see "do ... driving" in a formal problem.
but, there it is, and you have to take gmac's word that this construction is ok. there's not much point in questioning correct answers from official problems.

[hmgmat]

thanks =)

[JonathanSchneider]

: )

[sanyalpritish]

Hi Ron,

I came down to D and E, I took D why is E is better than E.
made is Past tense while indicates in present tense..

[RonPurewal]

Hi Ron,

I came down to D and E, I took D why is E is better than E.
made is Past tense while indicates in present tense..

There's a problem of meaning here. Let me illustrate with an analogy.

Few of these animals eat or drink during the harsh daylight hours --> this sentence would mean that the animals do neither of these activities, in the main, during daylight hours.

few of these animals eat and avoid drinking during the harsh daylight hours --> the sentence would mean that there are few animals that do both of these things, but leaves open the possibility that many, or perhaps even a majority, do one or the other. Also, this wording is hopelessly awkward, but it probably takes a native speaker's ear to discern that fact.

the last two choices of the problem exhibit the same sort of issue. The intended meaning is that people are doing either of these activities, so (e) is the only one of these two choices to correctly represent this meaning.

[duolaimi_007]

Hi, Ron. even if I understand what you meant, how could I know the auther implied in your way that one of the two events( few people have significantly reduced the amount of driving , few people are making fuel efficiency a priority when shopping for cars) rather than neither of them will be done by the "few people"?

In addition, choice E indicates a tense contradiciton before and after conjunction "or". Thus, In my opinion, there should be a parallelism, in terms of tense, between "reduce" and " make". Therefore, I chose D, because, in general concept, present perfect and resent tense both belong to the present. Additionally, I failed to notice the indicator of past tense in the latter segment of Choice E.

Repudiate and correct me, if I'm wrong. Thanks!

[vineetbatra]

IMO E is parallel and not D because

Research Indicates 2 things that few people have significantly reduced x or (few people have significantly) made y.

Reduced and Made are parallel.

In D they are not.

Ron your expert comment will be helpful, because this is the reason I chose E over D.

Thanks,

Vineet

[RonPurewal]

IMO E is parallel and not D because

Research Indicates 2 things that few people have significantly reduced x or (few people have significantly) made y.

Reduced and Made are parallel.

In D they are not.

Ron your expert comment will be helpful, because this is the reason I chose E over D.

Thanks,

Vineet

yes.

in fact, that's a much better (and easier) way to make that decision. nicely done.

[violetwind]

IMO E is parallel and not D because

Research Indicates 2 things that few people have significantly reduced x or (few people have significantly) made y.

Reduced and Made are parallel.

In D they are not.

Ron your expert comment will be helpful, because this is the reason I chose E over D.

Thanks,

Vineet

yes.

in fact, that's a much better (and easier) way to make that decision. nicely done.

Dear Ron，

another 2 questions about the parallelism here:
1.should "made...priority" be just simple past tense? as there's a clause "when....." which may indicate the tense of this action.

2.In GMAT, can a past tense sentence be parallel with a present perfect tense sentence? if the meaning is all right.

Thank you!

[violetwind]

Hi Ron,

I came down to D and E, I took D why is E is better than E.
made is Past tense while indicates in present tense..

There's a problem of meaning here. Let me illustrate with an analogy.

Few of these animals eat or drink during the harsh daylight hours --> this sentence would mean that the animals do neither of these activities, in the main, during daylight hours.

few of these animals eat and avoid drinking during the harsh daylight hours --> the sentence would mean that there are few animals that do both of these things, but leaves open the possibility that many, or perhaps even a majority, do one or the other. Also, this wording is hopelessly awkward, but it probably takes a native speaker's ear to discern that fact.

the last two choices of the problem exhibit the same sort of issue. The intended meaning is that people are doing either of these activities, so (e) is the only one of these two choices to correctly represent this meaning.

Ron, about the difference between"Few....or" and "Few...and",I wanna share my understanding on this ,which is inspired by your explanation.:-)

Lack of "a native speaker's ear", I'm trying to understand this seemingly idiomatic usage of "or" with logical thought. And I think it comes from the idea of "avioding ambiguity".

Math can be used here to clarify this question.
presuming A is a set of number and B is another set of number,
then ：A or B is A∪B， A and B is A∩B

then：few.....A or B, is denying A∪B, meaning of which is clear.
but: few....A&B, induce confusion about whether the setence is "denying A and at the same time denying B" or "denying A∩B" ? the former shares the same meaning with "denying A∪B", but the latter one is a totally different meaning, which may be what" a native speaker's ear" perceives according to Ron's explanation.
well, in short, the matter here is which one is the meaning that the speaker wanna express? Ambiguity emerges.

Therefore, I think the usage of "or" after negative attributes comes from the logic behind.

sorry for some possible misuse of terms, such as "deny", can you tell me the right way to say that ?

[RonPurewal]

Ron, about the difference between"Few....or" and "Few...and",I wanna share my understanding on this ,which is inspired by your explanation.:-)

Lack of "a native speaker's ear", I'm trying to understand this seemingly idiomatic usage of "or" with logical thought. And I think it comes from the idea of "avioding ambiguity".

Math can be used here to clarify this question.
presuming A is a set of number and B is another set of number,
then ：A or B is A∪B， A and B is A∩B

then：few.....A or B, is denying A∪B, meaning of which is clear.
but: few....A&B, induce confusion about whether the setence is "denying A and at the same time denying B" or "denying A∩B" ? the former shares the same meaning with "denying A∪B", but the latter one is a totally different meaning, which may be what" a native speaker's ear" perceives according to Ron's explanation.
well, in short, the matter here is which one is the meaning that the speaker wanna express? Ambiguity emerges.

Therefore, I think the usage of "or" after negative attributes comes from the logic behind.

this is a very well written, and very well crafted, explanation.
nice!

sorry for some possible misuse of terms, such as "deny", can you tell me the right way to say that ?

"deny" is a perfectly acceptable term in formal logic; it's equivalent to "negate".
in informal speech this usage would sound a little weird, since "deny", in informal (conversational) usage, is limited to denying rumors, slanderous allegations, etc. but your usage of the term to explain formal logical concepts is correct.

[jp.jprasanna]

Option C: that there are few people who have significantly reduced the amount of driving they do, nor having made

Also can we eliminate C because of the comma before "nor" as the things that follow ",nor " should be a clause? - Is my reasoning correct here?