Every is singular or plural

[bearbull]

In most modern businesses, there is now one manager for every 10 employees, half as many as there were a mere 20 years ago.

(A) there is now one manager for every 10 employees, half as many as there were

(B) every 10 employees now has one manager, half as many as there was

© there are now 10 employees for every manager, half as many as there was

(D) every 10 employees now have one manager, half as many as there were

(E) there is now one manager for every 10 employees, half as many than there were

[mission800]

Stuck b/w A&D ... will guess A :rolleyes:

[avixorld]

IMO A by POE

 

E: as many than -- wrong

c: there are --- wrong

D: it seems that each and every 10 emps has one manager , also every ...have

[bearbull]

IMO A by POE

 

E: as many than -- wrong

c: there are --- wrong

D: it seems that each and every 10 emps has one manager , also every ...have

 

Why did you eliminate B ?

[mission800]

Why did you eliminate B ?

 

"half as many as there was"

[mission800]

IMO A by POE

 

E: as many than -- wrong

c: there are --- wrong

D: it seems that each and every 10 emps has one manager , also every ...have

 

in C, "there are" at the beginning doesnt seem wrong, we are talking about "every 10 employees"

 

the thing i see wrong with C is at the end: "as there was"

same thing wrong with B

 

in case u still say "there are" at the beginning of the sentence is wrong, then how did u pick A ???

[mission800]

if "there are" or "there is" at the beginning of these sentences is wrong, then i change my answer to D :hmm:yeah now D sounds better to me . . .

[mitzi]

My pick is A too.

 

(A) there is now one manager for every 10 employees, half as many as there were Although 'there is' and 'there were' are undesirable constructions, but this answer choice keeps parallelism. 'one manager for every 10 employees' is better way as opposed to C.

(B) every 10 employees now has one manager, half as many as there was --> has... was

© there are now 10 employees for every manager, half as many as there was "10 employees for every manager" is awkward.

(D) every 10 employees now have one manager, half as many as there were --> the verb form is inconsistent(have... were)

(E) there is now one manager for every 10 employees, half as many than there were --> as.. than is incorrect. It should be 'as... as'

[effective_factor]

A it is. after a good hard look i am inclined towards the first option

 

(A) there is now one manager for every 10 employees, half as many as there were Correct

 

(B) every 10 employees now has one manager, half as many as there was

this inversion of the original sentence is crap + has makes the generalization a fact

 

© there are now 10 employees for every manager, half as many as there was

i think the auther is trying to convey that there used to be more than 10 employees for every manager but now it is less but here the focus is on managers

 

(D) every 10 employees now have one manager, half as many as there were

inversion is crap plus every is singualr so logically has should follow it

 

(E) there is now one manager for every 10 employees, half as many than there were

 

as many as is correct

[bearbull]

A it is. after a good hard look i am inclined towards the first option

 

(B) every 10 employees now has one manager, half as many as there was

this inversion of the original sentence is crap + has makes the generalization a fact

 

 

Please elaborate !!

Thanks

[sh_vivek]

yea A seems best

[bearbull]

yea A seems best

 

what is wrong with B ?

 

Please explain

 

Thanks

[effective_factor]

Please elaborate !!

Thanks

 

the writer's intended meaning is that there is one manager fore every 10 employees and the number of employees per manager is half as compared to the number 20 years back

 

option B compares number of managers and not the number of employees

[john333]

My opinion slightly differs from that of effective_factor.

Ironically we both are getting B wrong.

 

 

I guess the writer's intended meaning is that there is one manager for every 10 employees and the number of manager is half as comared to the number 20 years ago.

B incorrectly and illogically refers to employees where it should refer to managers.

 

Moreover, for depicting ratios we use construction "One x for every (number) Y".

 

A seems appropriate.

 

Effective can you please elaborate a lil more?

[effective_factor]

My opinion slightly differs from that of effective_factor.

Ironically we both are getting B wrong.

 

 

I guess the writer's intended meaning is that there is one manager for every 10 employees and the number of manager is half as comared to the number 20 years ago.

B incorrectly and illogically refers to employees where it should refer to managers.

 

Moreover, for depicting ratios we use construction "One x for every (number) Y".

 

A seems appropriate.

 

Effective can you please elaborate a lil more?

 

john333 initially i came up with the same logic and my first impression of the question was that the number of managers are compared but my inclination towards this logic changed after looking at option A

 

there is now one manager for every 10 employees, half as many as there were

 

what does were refer to in the above option. it cannot refer to a manager

 

please correct me if i am missing on something

[john333]

In A "there is" is correct usage as we are talking about one manager.

In C "there are" is also correct as it refers to 10 employees. In c "there was" at the end renders it incorrect.

[effective_factor]

In A "there is" is correct usage as we are talking about one manager.

In C "there are" is also correct as it refers to 10 employees. In c "there was" at the end renders it incorrect.

 

can you explain why was is incorrect in C

[effective_factor]

In A "there is" is correct usage as we are talking about one manager.

In C "there are" is also correct as it refers to 10 employees. In c "there was" at the end renders it incorrect.

 

can you explain why was is incorrect in C

[john333]

can you explain why was is incorrect in C

 

Effective_Factor,

I will try to explain this with per my understanding. Do let me know if I am missing on something.

 

"were" is appropriately referring to actual number of managers. If we try to understand the logic behind the question, It clearly seem to talk about the ratio “one X for every (number) Y”.

 

Now in the question we are talking about one manager which is represented in the ratio (1 x for (n) y, so use of "is" is correct. But, when we come down to latter part of the sentence it says, "as many as there were" to represent the actual number of managers.

"were" refers to the number of managers compared with the number 20 years ago.

Verb can not refer to a single manager as there were many managers for many employees (only the ratio is 1:10). It’s just that the ratio talks about 1 manager for 10 employees.

 

Now the same logic makes C incorrect. "As many as" refers to actual number of managers and not the "one" that is represented by the ratio.

We can not use "was" to represent plurality of the employees/managers.

If it were “half as many as there were”, then it would have been correct option.

 

Now “half as many as there were” is used in D but it should have also used HAS rather than HAVE.

 

So when we are talking about the ratio, we got to use singular "is" as is done in the former part where we are talking about one manager. Whereas, in the latter part, we are talking about plurality of the managers, which is correctly represented by "as many as" so it requires the use of plural "were".

 

Tell me what you think of it.

[crazy800]

i feel like D is the answer. OA please

[john333]

i feel like D is the answer. OA please

 

D is incorrect.

 

Now “half as many as there were” is used in D but it should have also used HAS rather than HAVE.

[bearbull]

Effective_Factor,

I will try to explain this with per my understanding. Do let me know if I am missing on something.

 

"were" is appropriately referring to actual number of managers. If we try to understand the logic behind the question, It clearly seem to talk about the ratio “one X for every (number) Y”.

 

Now in the question we are talking about one manager which is represented in the ratio (1 x for (n) y, so use of "is" is correct. But, when we come down to latter part of the sentence it says, "as many as there were" to represent the actual number of managers.

"were" refers to the number of managers compared with the number 20 years ago.

Verb can not refer to a single manager as there were many managers for many employees (only the ratio is 1:10). It’s just that the ratio talks about 1 manager for 10 employees.

 

Now the same logic makes C incorrect. "As many as" refers to actual number of managers and not the "one" that is represented by the ratio.

We can not use "was" to represent plurality of the employees/managers.

If it were “half as many as there were”, then it would have been correct option.

 

Now “half as many as there were” is used in D but it should have also used HAS rather than HAVE.

 

So when we are talking about the ratio, we got to use singular "is" as is done in the former part where we are talking about one manager. Whereas, in the latter part, we are talking about plurality of the managers, which is correctly represented by "as many as" so it requires the use of plural "were".

 

Tell me what you think of it.

 

:tup::tup:

 

Good explanation !!!!!!

[bearbull]

john333 initially i came up with the same logic and my first impression of the question was that the number of managers are compared but my inclination towards this logic changed after looking at option A

 

there is now one manager for every 10 employees, half as many as there were

 

what does were refer to in the above option. it cannot refer to a manager

 

please correct me if i am missing on something

 

Thanks effective .

 

You have been effective in shaping the most effective factors in sentence correction : Reason for each question , rules and pattern

 

 

Thanks

[bearbull]

effective/ john ,

 

 

Please let me know whether my reasoning is rt?

Your discussion has helped me narrow one more theory in my grammar diary

 

I will restrict my understanding to A , b and c

 

 

(A) there is now one manager for every 10 employees, half as many as there were

(B) every 10 employees now has one manager, half as many as there was

© there are now 10 employees for every manager, half as many as there was

 

half as many as is appositive modifier ,which modifies the preceding noun

 

It may be separated by a comma or may not be

 

as many as in the original sentence modifies employees and hence the half as many as refers to employees and rightly followed by were

 

However , "As many as" in b and as many as in C refer to manager wrong

 

Please advice

 

thanks !

 

OA IS indeed A

[mitzi]

Effective_Factor,

I will try to explain this with per my understanding. Do let me know if I am missing on something.

 

"were" is appropriately referring to actual number of managers. If we try to understand the logic behind the question, It clearly seem to talk about the ratio “one X for every (number) Y”.

 

Now in the question we are talking about one manager which is represented in the ratio (1 x for (n) y, so use of "is" is correct. But, when we come down to latter part of the sentence it says, "as many as there were" to represent the actual number of managers.

"were" refers to the number of managers compared with the number 20 years ago.

Verb can not refer to a single manager as there were many managers for many employees (only the ratio is 1:10). It’s just that the ratio talks about 1 manager for 10 employees.

 

Now the same logic makes C incorrect. "As many as" refers to actual number of managers and not the "one" that is represented by the ratio.

We can not use "was" to represent plurality of the employees/managers.

If it were “half as many as there were”, then it would have been correct option.

 

Now “half as many as there were” is used in D but it should have also used HAS rather than HAVE.

 

So when we are talking about the ratio, we got to use singular "is" as is done in the former part where we are talking about one manager. Whereas, in the latter part, we are talking about plurality of the managers, which is correctly represented by "as many as" so it requires the use of plural "were".

 

Tell me what you think of it.

 

Awesome explanation! [clap]