PREPSC:babies were born to women

[lawrencewwh]

According to public health officials, in 1998 Massachusetts became the first state in which more babies were born to women over the age of thirty than under it.
A. than
B. than born
C. than they were
D. than there had been
E. than had been born

Answer is A, why not B?
Thanks in advance.

[stock.mojo11]

According to public health officials, in 1998 Massachusetts became the first state in which more babies were born to women over the age of thirty than under it.
A. than
B. than born
C. than they were
D. than there had been
E. than had been born

Answer is A, why not B?
Thanks in advance.

Ask the Q what it is compared in the sentence?

# of babies born to women over the age of 30 to under 30

By using the word born again after than, it seem to suggest that babies were born under thirty.

[StaceyKoprince]

Where is this from? Did you see this on a GMATPrep test? This folder is ONLY for GMATPrep test questions, and such questions should be posted here only if you actually saw the question yourself in your GMATPrep software.

I'm asking because there appears to be a (pretty major) error in the non-underlined portion of the sentence. Can you please reply and tell me exactly where you saw this question? Thanks.

[bluementor]

Hi Stacey,

This is indeed a GMATPrep 1 question.

-BM-

[niitorious]

I just saw this in GmatPrep as well. I can post a screenshot if anyone is interested...

this seems like such a weird question. none of these answer choices seem to make the right comparison

[DennaMueller]

What error are you seeing? I didn't like any of the answers. I don't like the pronoun 'it'.

[RonPurewal]

A. than

yeah, i don't like this either.
but the fact is that it doesn't contain any of the errors that plague the other choices. read on.

B. than born

you can't say "born under it"; this would imply babies that were born when THEY were under the age of thirty. this is clearly not what we mean.

C. than they were

the use of "they" implies that we're talking about the SAME BABIES referenced in the earlier part of the sentence.
when you use a PRONOUN, you are automatically referring to the SAME NOUN, IN THE SAME CONTEXT, as in the first part of the sentence.

D. than there had been

bad parallelism.
the non-underlined part uses the simple past, so we can't switch to the past perfect.

E. than had been born

same problem as (d)

[victorgsiu]

Are we to assume that "it" refers to "the age of the thirty" rather than "women over the age of thirty"?

Is "it" used correctly here?

[RonPurewal]

Are we to assume that "it" refers to "the age of the thirty" rather than "women over the age of thirty"?

Is "it" used correctly here?

#1 answer:
yes, it is. this is an official problem, and that's the correct answer. so... yes, it's used correctly.

(seriously)

--

see here:
post30983.html#p30983

these conditions are satisfied here.
* context is obvious (it's clear that "it" is the age of 30, not massachusetts)
* parallelism between "it" and "the age of 30" (both are objects of prepositions)
* nonparallelism between "it" and other nouns

[dolumoks]

This question is for Ron or Stacey, would 'E' qualify as the answer according to the rule where we compare a later past event to an earlier past event?

i.e before 1998 there were more babies born under 30 than over (earlier past event) and in 1998 there were more babies over 30 than under (later past event)


Thanks for your time

[RonPurewal]

This question is for Ron or Stacey, would 'E' qualify as the answer according to the rule where we compare a later past event to an earlier past event?

i.e before 1998 there were more babies born under 30 than over (earlier past event) and in 1998 there were more babies over 30 than under (later past event)


Thanks for your time

no, because there are not later and earlier events in this situation.

the sentence compares two different events that occurred at exactly the same time: (a) babies born to women over 30 in 1998, and (b) babies born to women under 30 in 1998. since these events are simultaneous, they should be described in the same tense (which must be the simple past tense, since that is the tense that is already used in the non-underlined part).

[ankitp]

C. than they were

the use of "they" implies that we're talking about the SAME BABIES referenced in the earlier part of the sentence.

when you use a PRONOUN, you are automatically referring to the SAME NOUN, IN THE SAME CONTEXT, as in the first part of the sentence.

I never actual knew that. Ron would the following sentence be incorrect because they refers to babies born to obese women?

" More babies were born to obese women than they born to healthy women. "

[RonPurewal]

Ron would the following sentence be incorrect because they refers to babies born to obese women?

" More babies were born to obese women than they born to healthy women. "

yep -- that would imply that you're talking about the same babies in both cases. i.e., it seems as though you have babies that are born twice, once to obese women and then again to healthy women.

[puneet.sharma]

Are we to assume that "it" refers to "the age of the thirty" rather than "women over the age of thirty"?

Is "it" used correctly here?

#1 answer:
yes, it is. this is an official problem, and that's the correct answer. so... yes, it's used correctly.

(seriously)

--

see here:
post30983.html#p30983

these conditions are satisfied here.
* context is obvious (it's clear that "it" is the age of 30, not massachusetts)
* parallelism between "it" and "the age of 30" (both are objects of prepositions)
* nonparallelism between "it" and other nouns

Dear Ron & victorgsiu
"it" can't refer to a plural subject (women over the age of thirty) so automatically it refers to "the age of the thirty" rather than
"women over the age of thirty"
please correct me if i am wrong

[RonPurewal]

Dear Ron & victorgsiu
"it" can't refer to a plural subject (women over the age of thirty) so automatically it refers to "the age of the thirty" rather than
"women over the age of thirty"
please correct me if i am wrong

hi -- the post you're responding to is almost 2 years old. since then, we've come to a better and simpler way to handle these pronoun issues. see here:
post40400.html#p40400