Shrinking faster than any other nation’s, the projected

[RonPurewal]

both are verbs with "the population of japan" as subject. perfectly parallel.

what makes you think they aren't parallel?

[RonPurewal]

remember—
from the standpoint of grammar, ALL verbs are equivalent.

• any verb TENSE decisions are entirely determined by meaning/context. grammar is completely irrelevant to verb tense.

• passive/active is entirely determined by meaning/context. again, grammar is irrelevant.

[sdfsdfsdfs481]

i have 2 questions related to this sc:
1. can these points be used to eliminate incorrect options?
(A) wrong modifier: "Shrinking....,projected decline. It is Japan's population that is shrinking
(B) +(D) I eliminated B,D because B,D compares Japan's population with other nations. Is this a compelling point to eliminate B and D?
(E): 'decline at" is unidiomatic

yes, yes, and yes.

2. Please teach me when we can use "decline by" or "decline of"?

"decline by" is used with the VERB "decline", and is followed by some sort of quantitative measure of the decline in question:
the number of applicants to school X has declined by 20% this year.

"decline of" is used with the NOUN "decline", and is followed by whatever is actually declining. idiomatically, this expression *can* describe literal declines in quantitative measurements, but is more often used to describe a figurative "decline", i.e., a fall from importance or prominence.
the decline and fall of the roman empire took place primarily during the centuries after the reign of constantine.

Hi Ron

May I sum up the usage of decline?

decline by + the number (e.g. 17%)
decline of + the object (e.g. roman empire)
decline at - unidiomatic

Right?

[RonPurewal]

yes, but i can't guarantee that those are the only usages.

also, you can't cross out a choice just because 'decline' occurs next to 'at'. if these two words are parts of separate constructions, the sentence can still work.

Accountants often go on vacation in May and June, because their workload tends to decline at that time of year.
(correct sentence)

note that 'decline at' is NOT a phrase here. you have two separate pieces:
their workload tends to decline (this is a sentence all by itself)
...at that time of year (a modifier of that sentence)

--

on the other hand, if a sentence is actually trying to say 'decline at [number]' as a single thought, then, yes, that would be unidiomatic.

[sdfsdfsdfs481]

yes, but i can't guarantee that those are the only usages.

also, you can't cross out a choice just because 'decline' occurs next to 'at'. if these two words are parts of separate constructions, the sentence can still work.

Accountants often go on vacation in May and June, because their workload tends to decline at that time of year.
(correct sentence)

note that 'decline at' is NOT a phrase here. you have two separate pieces:
their workload tends to decline (this is a sentence all by itself)
...at that time of year (a modifier of that sentence)

--

on the other hand, if a sentence is actually trying to say 'decline at [number]' as a single thought, then, yes, that would be unidiomatic.

thank you ron.

[RonPurewal]

you're welcome.

[harika.apu]

You're right that "intention to sustain..." is unidiomatic; that error alone justifies elimination.

However, it's unlikely that a GMAC problem would turn on this sort of idiom alone. Here, you also have a meaning that doesn't really make sense.

Here's what is actually happening in the situation described in the sentence:
* The state makes deposits into a fund.
* That fund is intended to sustain the state's economy"”in the future, once (a) the state's oil reselves are depleted and, presumably, (b) the fund has reached a certain size.

The deposits are not directly intended to sustain the Alaskan economy, so the phrasing of that choice doesn't make literal sense.

(Remember"”you NEVER have to make this kind of decision in isolation. All that's necessary is to notice that the correct answer makes much better literal sense than this one.)

Hello Ron,
Now i understand why option C is preferred to option A.
However, is "intention to " - wrong ?
He announced his intention to stand in elections . - Is this wrong?
or "intention of" is correct ?

Thanks:)

[RonPurewal]

a thing can be intended (by its creator) to do something.
e.g.,
CR problems are intended to test your real-world reasoning abilities.

also, if 'intend' is a verb then it takes 'to ___'.
e.g.,
Joe did not intend to insult Marcia, but his comments hurt her deeply.
this usage can also just be followed by a noun: Joe did not intend any offense to Marcia, but...

but, for the noun 'intention', it's the intention of xxxxx.

[RonPurewal]

most importantly, if you're looking at something like this... it's almost certainly NOT your only path.
GMAT problems no longer rely on relatively rare idioms (as they did 15-20 years ago when the test pool consisted almost exclusively of native english speakers from the US).

so, before you hang your hat on something like this, try to find something else that is...
...easier,
...more fundamental,
and/or
...based in objective logic (= something you can actually figure out, by just thinking carefully about it), rather than in random idiomatic conventions that must be memorized.

[HM537]

hi instructors

i want to make sure whether the only issue in E is unidiom usage of *decline at*?

thank you!

The modifier doesn't make sense as a modifier.

The main sentence says that Japan's population IS shrinking. I.e., it's discussing something that is happening at present.

A projected decline is in the future. So, "with a projected decline" can't be used as a modifier, since the future doesn't describe the present.

Note that the correct answer handles the situation by linking two different verbs——in two different tenses——with "and". No modifier.

so the tense of "with+..." modifiers should be simultiniously with what they modifies?

"The honeybee’s stinger is heavily barbed and stays where it is inserted, with the result that the act of stinging causes"

how this "with..." modifier works? is it modify "is heavily barbed"? the result is future but "is" is present? please point out my fault.

i'm a little stuck with this kind of modifier.

[RonPurewal]

these are both general observations:
* this kind of stinger (IN GENERAL) stays where it is inserted.
* thus, the act of stinging (IN GENERAL) causes xxxxxxx.

these observations—like other general observations (e.g., The sun sets in the west, Blood circulates throughout the human body)—are not confined to a specific timeframe.

so, you have 'timeframe-independent general observation #1' and 'timeframe-independent general observation #2'.
matching?
yes.

[HM537]

these are both general observations:
* this kind of stinger (IN GENERAL) stays where it is inserted.
* thus, the act of stinging (IN GENERAL) causes xxxxxxx.

these observations—like other general observations (e.g., The sun sets in the west, Blood circulates throughout the human body)—are not confined to a specific timeframe.

so, you have 'timeframe-independent general observation #1' and 'timeframe-independent general observation #2'.
matching?
yes.

" , + with " modifier should modifies the preceding clause and describes part/ component/ aspect/ consequence of the previous thing. it should be simultaneously with the previous action. i mean the same timeframe of both events. is that right?

“With the cost of wireless service plummeting in the last year and mobile phones becoming increasingly common, many people are now using their mobile phones to make calls across a wide region at night and on weekends, when numerous wireless companies provide unlimited airtime for a relatively small monthly fee.”

I can't understand why this "with" midifier is used to describe things that are contemporaneous with main clause. "are using" is present and "plummeting" is a previous thing in the last year. why are they simultaneously?

by the way, if "with+ " is placed at the beginning of the clause, should it apply to the subject of the main clause? like verb-ing or verb-ed modifiers?

[RonPurewal]

I can't understand why this "with" midifier is used to describe things that are contemporaneous with main clause. "are using" is present and "plummeting" is a previous thing in the last year. why are they simultaneously?

if the cost is still decreasing, that interpretation makes sense.

[RonPurewal]

by the way, if "with+ " is placed at the beginning of the clause, should it apply to the subject of the main clause? like verb-ing or verb-ed modifiers?

not necessarily.

you already know the answer to this question, by the way—it's answered by the sentence you quoted in italics!

[HM537]

I can't understand why this "with" midifier is used to describe things that are contemporaneous with main clause. "are using" is present and "plummeting" is a previous thing in the last year. why are they simultaneously?

if the cost is still decreasing, that interpretation makes sense.

Thank you ron, you are awesome, the best GMAT instructor! I got 700 yesterday! I am excited now, though it's still not enough and i will take the test next month again. Anyway, thank you soooo much!! I will keep moving!